A. N. Verma, J. - (1.) THIS petition by a landlord is directed against an order passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowing a revision filed by the tenant, respondent No. 1, under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and dismissing the petitioner's suit for the tenant's eviction.
(2.) THESE are the relevant facts : The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent No. 1 the tenant of an accommodation on the first floor of house No. 11/291 Souterganj, Kanpur. The petitioner filed a suit for the ejectment of the respondent No. 1 on the ground of default. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 was in arrears of rent from 3-4-1974 amounting to Rs. 2,346.66 P which he failed to pay despite a notice of demand duly served on him. A decree for damages for use and occupation etc. was also claimed in the suit. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had paid rent in advance for the period upto 31-7-1974 to the previous landlord and that when he sent a bank draft of Rs. 2090/- covering the rent for the period 1-8-1974 to 30-9-77 within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand to the petitioner the same was refused by him. The defence of the respondent No. 1 thus, was that he was not in arrears of rent and that the suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The suit was filed on 10-1-1978. Summons of the suit fixing 23-5-1978 for filing written statement and hearing of the suit was served on the defendant. In response to the summons the respondent No. 1 put in appearance on 23-5-1978 and deposited Rs. 3,700/- purporting to take advantage of the provisions of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondent No. 1 had made an application for the said deposit a day earlier i. e. 22-5-1978. Along with the deposit, the respondent No. 1 also submitted a' chart giving the details of the amount or amounts which the said respondent was required to deposit under section 20 (4). On 23-5-1978 the respondent No. 1 moved an application for adjournment on the ground that the summons sought to be effected on him was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint and he was, therefore, unable to file the written statement on that date. He prayed for some time to do so. The court allowed that application and the case was adjourned to 21-8-1978 for hearing. On 21-8-1978, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The case was consequently adjourned to 24-10-1978. On 24-10-1978 the respondent No. 1 deposited a further sum of Rs. 250/-. Apart from Rs. 3,700/- which the respondent No. 1 had deposited on 23-5-1978, he had also deposited few other sums of money namely Rs. 235.75 P and Rs. 175.35 P Respectively on 14-8-1978 and 10-8-'78.
(3.) IT was not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if all the aforesaid amounts are taken into account they would together be more than sufficient to cover the amount which was required to be deposited under section 20(4) of the aforesaid Act. On the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial court. It held that the defendant had not paid-rent from 3-4-1974. Another finding recorded by the trial court was that the rate of rent was Rs. 55/- per month which was inclusive of the water-tax. On the question whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit under section 20(4) of the aforesaid Act, the trial court held that the date of first hearing was 23-5-1978 being the date mentioned in the summons for the hearing of the suit, and, inasmuch as, the defendant had not deposited full amount which was according to the trial court, Rs. 4,109.10 P, before that date, the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the said provision. The result was that the suit of the petitioner for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation as well as for the recovery of Rs. 1,943.32 being the arrears of rent and damages was decreed. A decree for mesne profits, pendente lite and future, at the rate of Rs. 55/- was also passed.;